Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-16. All rights reserved.

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Durham Unhappy With Court-Appointed Attorney, Wanted Him Off His Case

WRTV's Rafael Sanchez obtained an e-mail convicted Ponzi schemer Tim Durham sent to his court-appointed public defender, Mark Inman, in which he demanded his resignation because of a conflict of interest Durham believes he had in representing him. Durham, who graduated near the top of his law class, called out Inman for his close relationship to Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, the federal trial court judge who presided over his trial and sentencing and who will now consider re-sentencing Durham based on a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion which tossed two of his wire fraud convictions.

In the e-mail, Durham criticized Inman for refusing to accept his phone calls from prison or exchange e-mails with him about his re-sentencing or efforts to have his appeal reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Durham expressed his displeasure at learning Inman had discussed his re-sentencing hearing in March with the U.S. Attorney's Office but not with him. "I have a constitutional right to participate in my own defense and I have a specific set of facts and issues I want litigated prior to sentencing, not to mention my Writ of Cert has not even been filed," Durham complained in the e-mail.

Durham noted Inman was Bill Dazey's boss, who served as counsel for his co-defendant, James Cochrane. Dazey's statements to the jury, according to Durham, will serve as part of the basis for his appeal. Durham contends Inman, Judge Magnus-Stinson and Monica Foster, who assigned Inman to his case, were close friends in law school and remain so to this day. "Therefore, because there is a clear conflict of interest regarding your representation of me and because there is no meaningful communication and there will not be any, I ask that you resign as my appointed counsel and ask for the appointment of new counsel," Durham requested of Inman. "If I do not hear from you by December 23, 2014, I will file my own motion for replacement of counsel and will also file a complaint with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission." Durham got what he wanted. A new public defender was appointed to represent him on Tuesday.

Durham received a 50-year prison sentence after being found guilty of ten wire fraud-related counts for his role in the loss of nearly $220 million of investors' money by his bankrupt Ohio-based Fair Finance. On appeal, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed two of the wire fraud convictions because federal prosecutors neglected to introduce evidence they discussed during trial which they argued supported those two wire fraud counts. The 7th Circuit rejected Durham's argument that the federal wire taps used by federal investigators to gain evidence to prosecute him were unlawfully obtained.

SUPPORT ADVANCE INDIANA

It takes many hours of time to publish content for Advance Indiana. If you enjoy reading the content of this blog, please help out by contributing. You can click on the "Make A Donation" button below to support Advance Indiana by using PayPal. Thanks to all of those readers who have made contributions in the past and continue to support this blog with your contributions. If you would rather support the blog using an alternative source of payment or would like to advertise on this blog, e-mail me at gwelsh@indy.rr.com for more information.

Blogflux

Subscribe To

Comment Policy

Advance Indiana allows you to post comments via this blog subject to the guidelines set forth herein. You understand that any comments you post are your own and are not those of Advance Indiana. You further understand that Advance Indiana is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced in your comments. Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable comments are not acceptable. If you think any content posted or otherwise included in Advance Indiana violates the guidelines set forth herein, then please alert Advance Indiana.
Advance Indiana reserves the right to pre-screen, edit, and remove any post as it deems appropriate. You specifically acknowledge that Advance Indiana has no obligation to display any post submitted or otherwise provided via Advance Indiana.